Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

I understand that is your goal. But we haven't really resolved this issue as to how to generate a replacement client identity.

Note that DHCP "needs" the identifier for a client to be unique so that the server can correctly identify whether this is a new or different client - otherwise, the server may assign the same address (and psid) to two clients if they happen to be connected at the same time which creates all sorts of other issues (duplicate address assignment).

And, shared-v4allocation is requiring use of the client-id and the format as described in RFC 4361 (which is based on the DHCPv6 DUID).

In the case of 4o6 (such as draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6), I would suggest that this client identifier could likely be the same as was used (or would be used) for DHCPv6 for the underlying interface. But perhaps someone will respond as to why that may not be a good idea.

But this would at least solve part of the problem - we still have to fix the DHCPv6 DUID, but this doesn't create a new identifier (since it was already used by the client).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:23 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz); [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)



On 28/05/15 13:19, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Note also that there is work going on in the DHC WG to address privacy 
> issues - see draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-00. And one of the 
> authors (the primary author) is from Microsoft so I am sure this is on 
> their radar.

So just to be clear: the reason I'm asking about this is mainly that I want to be sure that this draft doesn't make deploying the privacy one harder/impossible.

S.

PS: Am in a bit of a rush to get something else done right now so probably won't be able to continue this discussion until later or tomorrow.